Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Dsc, new baby and maintenance

783 replies

Gildolann · 22/05/2017 22:52

NC for this just in case!
DH has 2 dc, dss 15 and dsd 12. He currently pays cm to his ex wife.
I am 26 weeks pregnant and DH has been made redundant, so we have decided that I will go back to work full time and DH will be a SAHD, all going well with the birth, my post natal health etc etc.
DH ex wife has gone absolutely mental when she found this out, texting DH that i will still have to give her money every month. Saying her dc are more important than our unborn dc and how I will probably miscarriage again anyway and now I don't want to give her anything. I was going to continue the maintainance arrangement as normal but she has fucked that.

OP posts:
Boogerbutt · 25/05/2017 09:36

But he provided that money when his other children were young to cover that along with said other exw.. now those children are at high school, could they not come to him after school until exw is finished work and have their dinner in them before home presuming that she works of course when we are looking at childcare side of things? There are so many opportunities for exw to take advantage of this arrangement - I need to state her clearly again though that I think he and OP should be providing for his children if possible, but there are other ways this can benefit everyone too and he is not making a difference between his kids .. in my eyes.

Willyoujustbequiet · 25/05/2017 09:45

opportunity for the ex to take advantage of the situation? what an absolute crock

wanting to ensure her kids have a roof over their head more like when faced with a deadbeat father who considers supporting his own children optional.

NotISaidTheWalrus · 25/05/2017 09:49

But he provided that money when his other children were young to cover that

They aren't grown, he still has an obligation now.

NotISaidTheWalrus · 25/05/2017 09:49

Been reading this a long time - it's mostly the he/she. Not every RP is mum. NRP can be a mum as well

Can be. Almost always isn't though. Let's be real.

Ginger782 · 25/05/2017 09:51

Um.....OP wrote like 3 (I think) emotional but factually vague posts and then quietly left the thread PAGES AGO.

You are all just fighting with each other now? Hmm

NotISaidTheWalrus · 25/05/2017 09:52

Welcome to AIBU. Are you new?

Andrewofgg · 25/05/2017 10:00

NotSaidTheWalrus Suppose an NRP does not apply for s promotion which he would probably have got? Would you assess him on the increase in pay he has not had?

Or take the case of an NRP who becomes a father again and stops taking overtime and night shifts so that he can be the hands-on father he failed to be first time round? Not only will his CM go down because there is another child; so will his pay, and I can see why the ex will be bitter. Should he be told to maximise his pay and not help with his new family?

pollymere · 25/05/2017 10:13

He's being made redundant so his income is going to change anyway. You still have three months before maternity leave and then a good bit after that. Even if your dh wanted to, it's unlikely he'd find another job within three to six months (redundancy frequently reflects the market for that job). He could be without work for a year. Putting you aside, his maintenance would be based on job seekers for that period and would probably stop so his ex wouldn't have any money. If you decide to maintain them, that's up to you but you need to point out to her that if he's on job seekers she won't get much either! She seems to have forgotten he's being made redundant. It's worth him going on jobseekers btw as its extra money and if the right job came along you could possibly then give up work...

OllyBJolly · 25/05/2017 10:22

Should he be told to maximise his pay and not help with his new family?

I believe all these issues should be considered in the context of what is best for all the DCs. Child maintenance is an obligation just like mortgage repayments or gas bills; they are not optional. So the discussion around being a SAHD should account for the older DCs. A discussion about promotion and higher salary vs more time at home is similar.

needsahalo · 25/05/2017 10:46

It's no different to an NRP who takes a less stressful but lower paid job. Or becomes a student. They are not condemned to the hamster wheel until their DC grow up

There is so much wrong with this, it is hard to know where to begin.

I'm a single parent. My children are in school. If I came on here and said fuck it, gonna go part-time, there would be outrage.

Dad on the other hand, he can do whatever he wants. Children are not his problem.

NotISaidTheWalrus · 25/05/2017 10:48

Suppose an NRP does not apply for s promotion which he would probably have got? Would you assess him on the increase in pay he has not had?

How is that remotely relevant?

How much plainer can I be? NOT PAYING YOUR CHILD SUPPORT IS BAD. CHOOSING NOT TO WORK SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY IT MAKES YOU A WANKER.

Is that clear enough? Do we really need all the hypothetical nonsense.

TempusEedjit · 25/05/2017 10:54

"Dad on the other hand, he can do whatever he wants. Children are not his problem"

On the flip side though many women fight tooth and nail to be the RP even when the dad has been equally involved with their DC. At best the dad will get 50/50 in court (unless the mother is not deemed safe of course). And even then contact is easy to block in practice.

The entire system needs an overhaul.

JuicyStrawberry · 25/05/2017 11:01

Is CM due from the NRP according to his (less commonly her, let's assume his) or from the NRP's household according to their total means?

It should always just be based on the nrp's earned income not the partner's. You don't see the amount going down when the rp has a partner so why should it go up when the nrp has a partner?

AvoidingCallenetics · 25/05/2017 11:11

All those posters who say that just because the OP is his wife, it doesn't make her responsible for his kids, what do you think marriage is?

Also astounded by the idea that exwife should agree to 50/50 shared parenting. This takes no account of schooling etc. Or the fact that mum and dad would each have to have homes big enough to accommodate 2 teens. The OP might find it cheaper and easier to just pay the child support.

This isn't about the ex getting everything her own way - it is about her entitlement to have the costs of housing/clothing/feeding her children shared by the other parent. I strongly believe that in a household where there is a sahp, half the money earned is theirs because they are contributing just as much to the household as the woh partner and therefore their 50% of thr money should cover child support.
Even though the OP is earning the money, it doesn't just belong to her. She is deriving direct economic benefit from her dh sah - that shouldn't be at her dsc expense.

Fliptophead · 25/05/2017 11:19

avoiding I'm guessing the op doesn't give a fuck about housing the children should she be saddled with 50/50 care. They can bunk together or sleep on the couch right Hmm

CrazedZombie · 25/05/2017 11:35

Juicy - spousal maintenance usually becomes zero if rp moves someone in. Tax credit and child benefit entitlement may be affected as new partner will be contributing to the household.

fatdogs · 25/05/2017 11:55

@crazedzombie spousal maintainence should drop to zero when RP moves someone in.

fatdogs · 25/05/2017 12:03

If DH feels so strongly that he is ENTITLED to half of OP earnings as a SAHD, he can take it up with her and demand his share to provide for his kids . If she refuses, he can LTB (leave the bitch) for financial abuse as according to most posters here, not wanting to subsidise someone without questions who is choosing to be economically unproductive is financial abuse.
But the DH is not doing that. He seems quite fine about it. So he is not the one sticking up for his kids. Why is OP getting all the shtick for wanting not to give her money to a woman who has shown her so much disdain and vitriol.
And since so many posters live conjecture and imagine the children are starving, I can engage in some conjecture of my own. Children coming from a mom like the ex wife are unlikely to treat OP with much respect and affection as a step mum so why should she lie awake at night since they are not her obligation. If the children had a good relationship with her, am sure OP will find a way to make sure the don't go without that will involve handing money to their shrew of a mother. If they are hungry, she can give them mony directly to buy food.

FlossyMooToo · 25/05/2017 12:10

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

JuicyStrawberry · 25/05/2017 12:18

spousal maintenance usually becomes zero if rp moves someone in. Tax credit and child benefit entitlement may be affected as new partner will be contributing to the household.

It's the rp's choice to move someone in. If they want to carry on getting spousal maintenance they know not to move someone in. Similarly with benefits, if they want to carry on getting them without them being affected, don't move someone in. It's certainly not up to the ex's new partner to make up the shortfall in either example.

AvoidingCallenetics · 25/05/2017 12:20

Fatdogs, you are missing the point that the dh hasn't just decided to give up work against the OP's will. They have agreed to him sah, therefore they are obligated (morally) to meet his financial obligations.
If the dh has a credit card or a car loan, him giving up work doesn't mean his monthly payments get cancelled. His wife will be expected to pay up or he will get prosecuted. Yet this country colludes with the OP and her h to treat his children as less important than a bloody Visa bill!

SkyBluePinkToday · 25/05/2017 12:25

OP - I think you need to get your head round the fact that the money is for the DSC, not her.
If you can accept that, then handing the money over to her might be less upsetting.
I understand that the idea of working all day to give money to someone who has wished a miscarriage on you must be sickening. But you are actually giving it to the DSC. Hold on to that thought.

fatdogs · 25/05/2017 12:27

They may have agreed but it is the DH obligation to factor in his duty to his children in discussing and reaching that decision not the OP.
Yes @flossymootoo I am a nasty bit of work but advocating for a woman who deliberately uses a stillbirth to hurt another women and still demand money from her is perfectly ok in your book. Because after all hey it's just words, no harm no foul. You say that the OP's unborn child has not been hurt by those words. Maybe not directly. But what if her wordw has caused OP to be be worried and parsnoid about the preganancy and thus was unable to relax and enjoy the last weeks of her oreganancy as she should? What if god forbid, the OP did lose her child for what every reason? She would always associate it with those words said. Think before you say words have no effect. They do. The ex wife is now finding that out the hard way.

JuicyStrawberry · 25/05/2017 12:59

fatdogs Everything you've just said is spot on.

Lillithxxx · 25/05/2017 13:00

I wouldn't want to be with a man who didn't support all of his children. My ex gives nothing to me for our two. He's a poor specimen.